The question put to the Supreme Court on appeal was the decision of the District Court to order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings. The trial judge based his decision on the fact that the defendant`s notification of payment to the court did not specify the costs for which the payment had been filed and that decision 22, rule 1, could therefore not be applied. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The first order relating to costs was set aside and replaced by an order ordering that the costs of the main hearing after the date of payment to the court be borne by the defendant on appeal (the plaintiff in the original proceedings). Ordinance 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, in any action for debt or damages, the defendant may, at any time after notifying the plaintiff, pay to the court such sum of money as he considers sufficient to satisfy the claim. Payment to the court may be made as soon as an appearance has been made and until a judgment has been rendered. `Where the money is transferred to the court in accordance with one or more means, the communication shall indicate the means or means for which payment is made and the amount paid for each of those means, unless the court or a judge decides otherwise.` In its judgment of 14 March 2018, the Supreme Court annulled the decision on the grounds that the judge of the Court of First Instance had misinterpreted the Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Order 22, Rule 1, paragraph 2. Note: This option affects interest as it may prevent all interest from accruing until the full judgment is paid. So if you have any questions about how a payment plan may affect you, talk to a lawyer or small claims consultant. Click here for help finding a lawyer. Except in the relatively rare case of defending the offer before the claim, payment to the court is more of an attempt to reach a compromise than a defense.
As Lord Justice Devlin said, «A payment to the court is simply an offer to sell the debt on terms. Payment does not imply any admission as to the merits of the plea; there has been no decision on this, and therefore no confiscation will be created. (1) The Supreme Court found that the Court of First Instance erred in the exercise of its discretion. Not only did it misinterpret the relevant provision of Decree 22, Rule 1(2), but it also wrongly deprived the defendant-applicant of its costs after payment of the sum of EUR 762 to the Court. If the applicant had accepted the payment in court, she would have recovered a net amount of EUR 513 after deduction of her costs of EUR 249. Instead, the plaintiff rejected the offer and ended up with a recovery of only €171. The general rule, as illustrated in Odgers` rule, (6) is that if the plaintiff is awarded an amount in excess of the amount paid in court, the costs incurred after payment will be awarded to him. However, the court may exercise its discretion in this matter, taking into account all relevant factors. In a case recently decided by the Supreme Court (4), the defendant`s plaintiff was in a previous action before the Paphos District Court (5), which was faced with a claim of €1,463 in special damages in the event of a traffic accident with almost one year of legal interest and costs of €249 plus VAT.
In his defence, which was lodged on 5. Filed in May 2008, the complainant accepted responsibility, but argued that the amount claimed was too high, arguing that the actual damage did not exceed the €200 that his insurance company had previously offered the plaintiff, which the plaintiff had refused. A few days later, he paid 762 euros to the court to cover the claim, interest and costs. The plaintiff rejected the amount offered and the trial continued. The District Court eventually awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of €171 plus statutory interest plus court costs. The applicant did not challenge that decision. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the action and the costs formed part of the same plea and that the defendant was not required to divide the amount paid between the claim and the costs. The specific provision concerns the deposit of an amount with a court in order to satisfy one or more of the claims, in which case in the notification of payment to the court contained in document 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the means for which payment is made and the amount offered under this means, must be specified.
This has nothing to do with the distinction between claim and costs. First, you can try talking to the creditor to see if they are willing to develop a payment plan with you. Remind the creditor that you want to pay, but simply don`t have the money to pay everything at once. The creditor may decide that he would rather have money at a time than nothing at all. If the other party doesn`t agree to a payment plan, you can try to apply to the court for one. When working on something, make sure all the details are written down. The agreement must include due dates, grace periods (if any), whether and how interest will accrue, where you need to send payments, what payment method will be accepted, and to whom you need to make payments. Be sure to keep detailed records and proof of your payments. (6) Odgers` Principles of Plädoyers and Practice, 21st edition, pp. 372-373.
If the amount offered is accepted, the dispute will be settled as a compromise but will not give rise to the authority of res judicata or indicate the assumption of responsibility(2) and will not be considered as a contractual agreement but as a purely procedural matter. (3) (2) Toprak Emerji Sanayi AS against the sale of Tilney Technology Plc [(1994) 1 WLR 840]. (4) Panagiotis Kyriakou v Andrea Avgoustinou Pilottou (2018), Πολιτική έφεση Αρ 98/2012, Supreme Court of Cyprus. For more information, please contact Maria Hadjisavva of Elias Neocleous & Co LLC by phone (+357 25 110 110) or by e-mail ([email protected]). The Elias Neocleous & Co LLC website can be found at www.neo.law. (5) Action 521/2018, Andrea Avgoustinou Pilottou v Panagiotis Kyriakou. . . .